Topics - Ethos_

I thought this would be a fun exercise to experiment with. So, what do you guys think? Give us a few ideas about what you think caused the Big Bang.

Just for fun, here is my first offering:

Lets assume we have two similarly sized supermassive black holes. One is composed of ordinary matter, the other is one made entirely of anti-matter. Would the energy created through annihilation be enough to overcome the immense gravitational force of the combined black holes?

According to the standard Model, the Higgs particle is the missing component that affirms this theory. However, there is a question whether the particle which the LHC has classified as the Higgs, is in fact, the so-called Higgs or another candidate; "The techni-higgs"

In the following article, a new look at absolute zero raises new questions. It seems that there may exist a greater state of order at infinitely hot regions resulting in what some theorists claim as a negative absolute zero. Very interesting article................

According to this new mathematical evidence, before the prospective black hole can complete it's collapse to the singularity, it will radiate away enough mass thru Hawking's radiation to stay just below this threshold and eventually explode. This will shake up the Cosmological world for years to come if peer review confirms these mathematical findings.

I have a question about the volume of air that can be contained at various pressures.

Assuming we have a cylinder of 10 gal. capacity and we pressurize it to 120 psi with air, how many cu/ft of air will it contain at that pressure?Secondly, using the same 10 gal. cylinder, we now pressurize it to 7000 psi. How many cu/ft of air will the cylinder now contain pressurized to 7000 psi?

If this forum had a place where these unscientific subjects could be dumped, we wouldn't have to constantly put up with them bleeding over into scientific categories. If any one wants to discuss these topics, allow them to go there. If they attempt to infiltrate other categories, they could be summarily and expeditiously moved.

Like most of the threads here in New Theories Section, I have no positive proof for the following ideas. Nevertheless, the proposition I'm offering has merit due to the limited physical facts we do have about the ultimate shape of things. And of course, when I speak about the shape of things, I'm referring to the true nature of our universe.

M theory or more frequently referred to as Brane theory suggests that we live on a 4 dimensional membrane closely adjacent to similar membranes on either side of us, where both sides reach to infinity containing an infinite number of so-called branes. Speculations has it that our big bang was created by a collision between our brane and the one directly adjacent to us. This collision then, in theory, is responsible for the mass and energy we presently have in our personal universe.

So how do I tie in the other items I mentioned in the title?

Black Hole Influence on the Brane.

I believe our own big bang was a collision produced by a massive gravitational well in the adjacent brane. I believe this because there is some support for the idea that gravitational influence can pass between branes. When the mass of the black hole in our adjacent brane reached sufficient size, the gravity it produces drew our brane close enough for a collision to take place. This collision between branes then produced the big bang in our present universe and the energy that was transferred to us from this collision is responsible for all the mass/energy we now have available in our present reality.

The question now is; What are virtual particles and why do they come in and out of existence?

Just as the gravitational influence can pass between branes, I believe that energy leakage is also possible without the eminent collision that huge gravitational masses can produce. I believe this leakage between branes is the source of these virtual particles.

Let's imagine we're parked at a safe orbital distance for a supermassive black hole. The mass of the black hole is producing gravitational energies that originate within the event horizon, depending upon the aggregate mass it contains. Because the speed of gravity is the same as light, how does this energy reach beyond the event horizon?

If the speed of gravity is the same as light, wouldn't that prevent gravitational energies from being felt outside the domain of the event horizon? I realize there must be something about this that I don't understand.

I would appreciate someone with the expertise to explain what appears to me to be a paradox. If they can provide the necessary information and help me understand where I'm lacking, there will be no need for me to take this question to the New Theories section.

I have wondered about this possibility over the years and would like to hear what our members think about the consequences of such a reality. It appears that scientists have been able to observe changes in the ratio of the electron mass relative to that of the proton mass. This dimensional constant was thought to be non-variable but recent data has shown that it has changed over time. It has also been noted that a change in the rate of radioactive decay has been observed coinciding with solar flares, another thought to be unchangeable constant. Any and all thoughts about the significance of these findings is appreciated.........

Quantum mechanics has established the theory of randomness. That particles can pop in and out of existence without any particular cause. These "virtual particles", as understood, are random manifestations and need no cause for their existence. This was contrary to former understanding as to the scientific model called; "cause and effect". And it took some time for this model to become accepted. As a result, the determinists among us had to swallow our pride and were expected to accept this dictum.

But before we cave into this, we must also remember that there is an accepted scientific model that says; Information is never really lost, it can only be diluted, diffused, or scrambled. And this generates the question I've been forced to contemplate.

If these particles had no cause to come into being, they came into existence with no prior transfer of information. And without any prior information about size, charge, mass, according to the theory of chaos, how is it possible to construct even the simplest of particles?

I suggest that the energetic space-time fabric transferred enough information to the local area to produce this so-called virtual particle and that randomness does not exist.

The question: Is randomness true or is the law of conservation of information?

One new theory which is receiving a great deal of attention lately is referred to as The Holographic Universe. The idea is that we all live on a two dimensional sphere at the edge of the universe. And we only experience three dimensions because of the holographic effect. Whether this is a true representation of reality, I'm afraid we will all have to wait for better evidence than we now have. In any event, this theory got me to thinking about the evidence we have recently observed about the accelerating character of our universe. This evidence, when first found, astounded the scientific community. And to date, we have no explanation for this acceleration except Dark Energy.

The evidence for Dark Energy is still waiting, as it were, in the wings. This got me to thinking about another explanation. We should all be familiar with what a light sail is. This device was suggested as a means of propulsion for distant voyages in space. In effect, this craft would have an enormous sail that would be pushed along by the action of light pressure coming from our own sun. After a calculated period of time, this means of propulsion would approach very high velocities. Accelerating from start to finish, where ever the destination might have been conceived to be.

What if the Holographic Universe is correct, and we live on the surface of this giant sphere we call the edge of our universe? Would this sphere act like a giant light sail, gathering all the light from the Big Bang to the present. Maybe this is the reason we still see our universe accelerating?

Just a thought, maybe some of the members here are proficient enough with math to answer this question? As for myself, I don't have the talent nor the skill to address this question.

Experiment has shown that increasing velocity slows the passage of time relative to observers. Take a trip on a spacecraft near light speed or park your craft near a Black Hole for a time, then return to earth to discover many years have passed while you may have only aged a few weeks or months. This proves that the traveler has moved into future events relative to all stationary observers. Now lets investigate the results of time travel into the past. While there are many reasons why this is considered impossible, let's ask a few questions anyway.

Consider the results of time travel into the future: The traveler experiences a slowing of time relative to all stationary observers. However, all stationary observers experience an increase in time relative to the traveler. To be quite honest, the folks left on earth during this adventure have time traveled into the past relative to the traveler. And the reason for my logic is this:

If slowing the pace of the clock results in travel into the future, then speeding the pace up should result in travel into the past. This is, of course, all relative and depends entirely upon what one defines as time travel.

The theory of a Universal Ether has long since been disproven by the Michelson & Morley experiment. This theory proposed that the universe was saturated with a field or substance which gave rise to the gravitational effects we commonly observe. Now science is proposing that we are living in a universe that is saturated with the so-called Higgs Boson. If the large hadron collider in Switzerland is capable of identifying this field of particles, are we going to, once again, open up the question of an Ether?